Blow Back: Foreign Interventionism And Its Unintended Consequences...

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Because anti-semitism is really productive.
Shit bag.

So quick to pull the anti-semite card, aren't you? Could that be because you're intellectually bankrupt beyond even filing chapter 11? My bet is on yes.

As for the allegation -

Yeah you think Israel pulled off 9/11, you think the Jewish lobby has too much control over the US government, you think the media is controlled by Jews.
But you're not an anti=semite.

Give me a fucking break.

Cite source quotes for where I said any of that.

You're so fucking bankrupt you actually have to make things up in order to pin your labels on people. You sir, are a fucking clown. A clown that has more of an interest in the state of Israel and what the US can do for your vested interest than you do for the American people.

 

[eflatminor]

Because anti-semitism is really productive.
Shit bag.

You can't call me anti-semitic...my Jewish mother would slap you for that! That, and I fully support the right of Israel to conduct their affairs as they see fit.

So let's focus on the point at hand. I'm saying your incorrect to say that we Libertarians "blame the US" for these kind of attacks. We simply question the idea of meddling where such blowback is inevitable. Certainly you can see the validity of weighing the potential benefits of interventionism against the negative consequences history teaches us, yes?

So the solution is to retreat behind the ocean?

Come on man, I said "weigh the potential benefits of interventionism against the negatives consequences history teaches us (aka blowback)". That's hardly the same thing as "retreat behind the ocean". Taking our position to the extreme is a tactic of the Left, something you'd do well to avoid.

No, that doesn't work. 9/11 proves it doesn't work.

What are you talking about? 9/11 didn't happen because we retreated, it happened because the Wahhabist assholes in Saudi Arabia were pissed about having our troops stationed outside of Mecca and our financial and military support of Israel. Again, because of our interventionism.

We are a global power. Pretending we're a jerkwater nation of 13 colonies doesn't work today. Our choice is either to engage the rest of the world or let others do it instead. And the results of the second choice are ugly.

Please, tell us exactly how the results of non-intervention would be ugly...and it can't be just because you say so (another tact of the Left). While you do so, keep in mind the results of our intervention resulted in all kinds of ugly blowback, from the taking of hostages in Iran to 9/11 to yesterday's murders.

This is what the Paul-bots don't get. They somehow think that we get attacked because we have a presence in other countries. That's wrong.

According to Osama Bin Laden, that's exactly why were attacked. Tell us, would YOU stand for another country stationing their troops on American soil?

As for foreign involvement, ask the Poles, Lithuanians, East Germans, etc etc how much better life is than it was under the Soviets.

This is what we call a non-sequitur. I'm quite sure the Poles are better off without the Soviets in charge. What does that have to do with our meddling in the affairs of other countries?

Ask the Vietnamese or Cambodians how much better it was once we left.

Vietnam is actually doing quite well these days: Vietnam Economic Update - in to 2012

No, the Wookie suiters are in LaLa Land here.

Childish name calling does not help your point.

This is why they never make inroads in the electorate

We've had over 100 years of big government liberals and conservatives. It will take some time to return to sanity. Our numbers and influence are clearly growing.

and are doomed to being a mere internet presence of conspiracy theorists and k00oks

If this is the best case you can make for status quo military intervention, I'm afraid you've failed to convince. I'm happy to keep an open mind and would love to see evidence, logic or reason that supports the idea that our overseas meddling has been good for us. I wonder if you'll do the same...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're wasting your time, eflatminor. Rabbi is only interested in trolling threads and insulting Ron Paul. It's his way of showing the board just how intellectually bankrupt he is.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're wasting your time, eflatminor. Rabbi is only interested in trolling threads and insulting Ron Paul. It's his way of showing the board just how intellectually bankrupt he is.

Says the guy who thinks Mossad planned 9/11.

The isolationists just don't get it. Probably never will.

 

[eflatminor]

The isolationists just don't get it. Probably never will.

Again with the Lefty tactic...that's disappointing. Nobody is talking about isolationism. Geez, I'm trying to give you every benefit of the doubt. I'm trying to be factual, honest and civil. Continuing to arrive at over-the-top conclusions that nobody is suggesting does not help your point. As a Conservative, you should be able to do better.

 

[The Rabbi]

The isolationists just don't get it. Probably never will.

Again with the Lefty tactic...that's disappointing. Nobody is talking about isolationism. Geez, I'm trying to give you every benefit of the doubt. I'm trying to be factual, honest and civil. Continuing to arrive at over-the-top conclusions that nobody is suggesting does not help your point. As a Conservative, you should be able to do better.

there's nothing factual in your response. I mention Vietnam and you post that their economy is doing well. Now. 30 years later. You conveniently leave out the boat people, the killings, the terrible poverty that followed our abandonment of that country.
And that's just one example of your selective responses.

Another one: We were attacked here. In NY. Having an ocean between us meant nothing. Do you honestly believe that because we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia this was the cause? Really? They werent invaders, they were invited by the Saudi government.
For the record, we have foreign troops in this country all the time. I dont see anyone driving airplanes into buildings on that account.
Put the kook-aid down.

 

[Stephanie]

Obama has had a hand in destabilizing the Middle east and I'm afraid we are in for a world of hurt folks..

vote this administration OUT

 

[eflatminor]

The isolationists just don't get it. Probably never will.

Again with the Lefty tactic...that's disappointing. Nobody is talking about isolationism. Geez, I'm trying to give you every benefit of the doubt. I'm trying to be factual, honest and civil. Continuing to arrive at over-the-top conclusions that nobody is suggesting does not help your point. As a Conservative, you should be able to do better.

there's nothing factual in your response.

Nothing...really? How sad you are this unwilling to consider any alternative to the status quo. Seriously sad.

I mention Vietnam and you post that their economy is doing well. Now. 30 years later. You conveniently leave out the boat people, the killings, the terrible poverty that followed our abandonment of that country.

Well, it is true they're doing well today. If we are to look back 30 years, one could argue that we didn't abandon anyone, we lost a war. One could also ask if that poverty would have occurred had we never entered the war in the first place. After all, the Communists won and eventually, they became much more like capitalists and are doing rather well today. Had we passed on the war, perhaps Vietnam's evolution from Commies to capitalists would have happened anyway...without all the death and costs of war. This is a reasonable thing to at least consider, no?

Do you honestly believe that because we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia this was the cause?

Doesn't matter what I believe, it's what the attackers believed. That's the point!

They werent invaders, they were invited by the Saudi government.

As we learned, that doesn't mean it was a good idea.

For the record, we have foreign troops in this country all the time.

I did not know this. Do you have a link that supports the idea of a foreign government stationing troops on US soil? I'm seriously interested in knowing the facts here. That said, if true, it only speaks to the willingness of Americans not to go bat shit crazy over such things. The crazies in the Middle East have proven to be of a different mind...aka blowback.

Put the kook-aid down.

Again with the childish insults. Doesn't help.

 

[paulitician]

And what will the end-result of this horrible mess be?...The American Taxpayer will be forced to cough up even more hard-earned money. Our Foreign Policy is such a sad nightmare. When will the People say enough is enough?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're wasting your time, eflatminor. Rabbi is only interested in trolling threads and insulting Ron Paul. It's his way of showing the board just how intellectually bankrupt he is.

Says the guy who thinks Mossad planned 9/11.

The isolationists just don't get it. Probably never will.

Seriously, you should stop eating paint chips.

 

[The Rabbi]

Again with the Lefty tactic...that's disappointing. Nobody is talking about isolationism. Geez, I'm trying to give you every benefit of the doubt. I'm trying to be factual, honest and civil. Continuing to arrive at over-the-top conclusions that nobody is suggesting does not help your point. As a Conservative, you should be able to do better.

there's nothing factual in your response.

Nothing...really? How sad you are this unwilling to consider any alternative to the status quo. Seriously sad.



Well, it is true they're doing well today. If we are to look back 30 years, one could argue that we didn't abandon anyone, we lost a war. One could also ask if that poverty would have occurred had we never entered the war in the first place. After all, the Communists won and eventually, they became much more like capitalists and are doing rather well today. Had we passed on the war, perhaps Vietnam's evolution from Commies to capitalists would have happened anyway...without all the death and costs of war. This is a reasonable thing to at least consider, no?

Seriously? That's your response? Perhaps this, and perhaps that? Yeah maybe if we had stayed and actually fought the war with the idea of winning Vietnam would look like South Korea.
But the actual fact is we abandoned Vietnam, the communists took over, and they massacred a bunch of people. We abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980s and the Taliban took over and massacred a bunch of people. We did not abandon Greece after WW2 and we defeated the communists and Greece has done much better than comparable communist countries.
The record is that bad things happen when we cut and run, not when we are engaged.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You really indulged on paint chips today.....

 

[eflatminor]

there's nothing factual in your response.

Nothing...really? How sad you are this unwilling to consider any alternative to the status quo. Seriously sad.



Well, it is true they're doing well today. If we are to look back 30 years, one could argue that we didn't abandon anyone, we lost a war. One could also ask if that poverty would have occurred had we never entered the war in the first place. After all, the Communists won and eventually, they became much more like capitalists and are doing rather well today. Had we passed on the war, perhaps Vietnam's evolution from Commies to capitalists would have happened anyway...without all the death and costs of war. This is a reasonable thing to at least consider, no?

Seriously? That's your response? Perhaps this, and perhaps that? Yeah maybe if we had stayed and actually fought the war with the idea of winning Vietnam would look like South Korea.
But the actual fact is we abandoned Vietnam, the communists took over, and they massacred a bunch of people. We abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980s and the Taliban took over and massacred a bunch of people. We did not abandon Greece after WW2 and we defeated the communists and Greece has done much better than comparable communist countries.
The record is that bad things happen when we cut and run, not when we are engaged.

Maybe...maybe not. Personally, I'm not willing to risk all those lives, all that money and all that destruction on a maybe. It's certainly unfortunate what the Communists did to other countries in the past. Same hold true for Islamists today. That does not necessarily make it our problem. Further, I cannot blindly accept that "bad things happen when we cut and run" when we know damn well bad things also happen when we engage, meddle and otherwise interfere with the business of other nations.

I'm reminded of something John Qunicy Adams said: "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

I argue that just a modicum of this kind of thinking is in order.

 

[paulitician]

Nothing...really? How sad you are this unwilling to consider any alternative to the status quo. Seriously sad.



Well, it is true they're doing well today. If we are to look back 30 years, one could argue that we didn't abandon anyone, we lost a war. One could also ask if that poverty would have occurred had we never entered the war in the first place. After all, the Communists won and eventually, they became much more like capitalists and are doing rather well today. Had we passed on the war, perhaps Vietnam's evolution from Commies to capitalists would have happened anyway...without all the death and costs of war. This is a reasonable thing to at least consider, no?

Seriously? That's your response? Perhaps this, and perhaps that? Yeah maybe if we had stayed and actually fought the war with the idea of winning Vietnam would look like South Korea.
But the actual fact is we abandoned Vietnam, the communists took over, and they massacred a bunch of people. We abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980s and the Taliban took over and massacred a bunch of people. We did not abandon Greece after WW2 and we defeated the communists and Greece has done much better than comparable communist countries.
The record is that bad things happen when we cut and run, not when we are engaged.

Maybe...maybe not. Personally, I'm not willing to risk all those lives, all that money and all that destruction on a maybe. It's certainly unfortunate what the Communists did to other countries in the past. Same hold true for Islamists today. That does not necessarily make it our problem. Further, I cannot blindly accept that "bad things happen when we cut and run" when we know damn well bad things also happen when we engage, meddle and otherwise interfere with the business of other nations.

I'm reminded of something John Qunicy Adams said: "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

I argue that just a modicum of this kind of thinking is in order.

Well said. Thanks.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well said? The guy is extremely patient, knowledgeable and "in tune".

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I've been telling Rabbi to stop eating paint chips, while eflat continues to explain.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nothing...really? How sad you are this unwilling to consider any alternative to the status quo. Seriously sad.



Well, it is true they're doing well today. If we are to look back 30 years, one could argue that we didn't abandon anyone, we lost a war. One could also ask if that poverty would have occurred had we never entered the war in the first place. After all, the Communists won and eventually, they became much more like capitalists and are doing rather well today. Had we passed on the war, perhaps Vietnam's evolution from Commies to capitalists would have happened anyway...without all the death and costs of war. This is a reasonable thing to at least consider, no?

Seriously? That's your response? Perhaps this, and perhaps that? Yeah maybe if we had stayed and actually fought the war with the idea of winning Vietnam would look like South Korea.
But the actual fact is we abandoned Vietnam, the communists took over, and they massacred a bunch of people. We abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980s and the Taliban took over and massacred a bunch of people. We did not abandon Greece after WW2 and we defeated the communists and Greece has done much better than comparable communist countries.
The record is that bad things happen when we cut and run, not when we are engaged.

Maybe...maybe not. Personally, I'm not willing to risk all those lives, all that money and all that destruction on a maybe. It's certainly unfortunate what the Communists did to other countries in the past. Same hold true for Islamists today. That does not necessarily make it our problem. Further, I cannot blindly accept that "bad things happen when we cut and run" when we know damn well bad things also happen when we engage, meddle and otherwise interfere with the business of other nations.

I'm reminded of something John Qunicy Adams said: "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

I argue that just a modicum of this kind of thinking is in order.

In a world economy with us as a world super power it is our problem. Everything is our problem You think the Taliban were not our problem in 1990? They were in an obscure piece of shit medieval country on the back side of nowhere. Now everyone knows where Afghanistan is.
You think we shouldn't have commercial ties everywhere in the world? Everywhere is our market. Our citizens travel everywhere. We have interests everywhere. That's reality. Face it.

 

[The Rabbi]

I've been telling Rabbi to stop eating paint chips, while eflat continues to explain.

Because it's the only gibberish you can spout without resorting to obscenities.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sure thing, chimp.